![[text]](/images_2009/sun021709.jpg)
Here’s another winter-in-Kaaawa morning to start out the holiday-shortened work week.
It’s still dark when we start walking in the morning, which these days is around 6 a.m. Last month at this time, sunrise was at 7:12. Tomorrow, it will be a 7 o’clock. By late next month, it will have shifted back to 6:30, meaning that we’ll be well into twilight at 6 a.m. and won’t need the flashlights any longer.
Let’s see. In addition to the bill relating to corporations moving money to their own political committees, two bills in the Campaign Spending Commission package are worth noting.
HB 215is a major rewrite of Hawaii’s overall campaign spending law. Commission director Barbara Wong says the bill “recodifies and updates, organizes, and clarifies” the existing law.
It is based on the work of a committee of 17 lawyers who advised the commission. I will not resort to an easy lawyer joke here, but I am concerned that there was no testimony on this bill other than that of the commission. I’m more than a little worried about differences between this bill and the draft put together by the blue ribbon recodification committee. My concern is that the substance and details of this rewrite have not been properly reviewed and vetted, and that it is going to end up introducing or perpetuating problems, conflicts, and ambiguities.
The measure is up for decision making in the House Judiciary Committee on this afternoon’s agenda.
The companion Senate bill, SB 95, has a single referral to the Committee on Judiciary and Government Operations.
The second measure (HB 216 and SB 94) would amend the Big Island experiment in comprehensive public funding of candidates for county council, scheduled to begin with the next election. The commission proposes deleting the whole system of “equalizing” funds, which was considered a key provision of the whole public financing approach.
The proposed system would provide qualifying candidates a certain modest level of public campaign funds that would be augmented by additional funds if a privately funded opponent begins to outspend a public-funded candidate. The idea is that this would be a disincentive for privately funded candidates to engage in a fundraising “arms race” of escalating spending.
But the commission points to a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that found this kind of equalizing provision to be unconstitutional and recommends that it be dropped in order to avoid a legal challenge to the fledgling experiment.
Neither of these measures has yet been set for a hearing.
Food for thought. I ran into this little essay, which likens the traditional newspaper industry to “a railroad bridge to Hawaii.”
News junkies might also want to check out the “Reinventing Classifieds” blog, full of links to provocative suggestions for rescuing this part of the news business.
And all that talk about sunrise times that started this entries reminds me to suggest the Naval Oceanography Portal, which you can follow to all kinds of good information, like a full year’s table of sunrise and sunset times for places in the U.S. and many sites internationally.
I dunno… reinventing classifieds could be akin to saying reinventing the model A. Or reinventing the drive in movie. No matter what misc. carnival charade is recommended to reheat the souffle, it is now considered a dinosaur and obsolete. As much as I hate to admit it. But nothing will replace the basic newspaper as a whole, and as an easier to read, more tactile, more satisfying experience than the internet version of the paper. But classifieds as such are dying. And most people don’t wanna shoot an upload a video, and especially do they not want to do facebuck nor myspace just to complete a chore they wanna get through wikiwiki. (selling something or renting a space…)
Hi Ian!
You made a significant error in your discussion of the Big Island public funding bill. You wrote:
“But the commission points to a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that found this kind of equalizing provision to be unconstitutional.”
This is not correct. It was a Federal court in Arizona which made the ruling. As Della Bellatti pointed out at the hearing, three other federal courts have found the equalizing funds mechanism to be constitutional. Neither the Ninth Circuit nor SCOTUS has weighed in yet.
You might be forgiven your misunderstanding. The Commission failed to mention the 3 court rulings which disagreed with their position, only mentioning the Arizona ruling. It kinda hints at their longstanding hostility to the public financing bills.
I’m not certain which hearing the Barman is referring to, since HB 216 has not yet had a hearing. But the commission has cited the Supreme Court’s Davis v. FEC ruling as well as the Arizona decision.
Well HB 215 is no longer just a recodification bill, if it ever was. Judiciary amended it today to delete or modify a number campaign finance provisions. Wish I could tell you exactly what, but since the House doesn’t make a habit out of making proposed drafts available online before the hearing I’ll have to wait till the HD1 is posted. This will be one to look out for.
Ian is right. I am wrong.
The CSC testimony did refer to a US Supreme Court ruling, Davis v FEC. That ruling can be found here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-320.pdf
It was a 5-4 split decision and, given the composition of the Court, I am not surprised to find my views in the minority, opposed to Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts. Actually, it kinda convinces me I am right!
I have not taken the time to read it closely nor to understand the intricacies of the NY public financing law. At first glance, the SCOTUS ruling does NOT appear to be directly applicable to the AZ or Hawaii public financing system. The SCOTUS ruling finds the NY system has “asymmetrical spending limits” which penalize a privately financed candidate. I do not see the “equalizing funds” mechanism of the AZ and HI systems as having such an effect.
The Federal Court in AZ did find so and its ruling appears to be “to the right” of even the SCOTUS majority. Hawaii is not bound by the AZ ruling. Another Federal court could find differently. Indeed, thrree other courts have found systems similar to Hawaii’s systtem to be constitutional, though the rulings preceded the SCOTUS ruling. But as I said, it is not clear to me the SCOTUS logic should apply to our equalizing mechanism.
I do find it annoying that the SCS seems to find so much delight in lining up with Alito, Thomas, Scalia et al on behalf of “free speech” for corporate and personal wealth and against serious means of equalizing free speech for candidates unwilling to appease corporate sponsors.
Imagine a packed football stadium. There is a stage on center field where two candidates are engaged in political debate. Each candidate has to pay to use the microphone. The candidate with enough cash can have their voice amplified so his/her remarks are heard by everyone in the stadium. The candidate with less cash can only have their points heard by a small fraction of the crowd–most of his points cannot be heard above the bustle of the crowd. At the end of the debate, the crowd is given ballots to vote.
The Hawaii “Clean Elections” bill doesn’t say everyone who wants to be on that stage should get to be there. But every qualified candidate should.
Barbara Wong and the campaign financing commission would provide one candidate with a handheld “Mr. Microphone” to compete with the concert style PA system of the wealthier candidate. It is not fair for the candidates, it is not fair to the voters, it is bad for democracy and it forces politicians to censor their proposals and votes in order to not offend potential wealthy donors.